Reflective Equilibrium in R & D Networks

In this article, we develop an approach for the moral assessment of research and development (R & D) networks on the basis of the reflective equilibrium approach proposed by Rawls and Daniels. The reflective equilibrium approach aims at coherence between moral judgments, principles, and background theories. We use this approach because it takes seriously the moral judgments of the actors involved in R & D, whereas it also leaves room for critical reflection about these judgments. It is shown that two norms, namely reflective learning and openness and inclusiveness, which are used in the literature on policy and technological networks, contribute to achieving a justified overlapping consensus. We apply the approach to a case study about the development of an innovative sewage treatment technology and show how in this case the two norms are or could be instrumental in achieving a justified overlapping consensus on relevant moral issues.

[1]  N. Daniels Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice , 1996 .

[2]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[3]  Simon Niemeyer,et al.  Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals , 2006 .

[4]  Nicholas F. Gray,et al.  Biology of Wastewater Treatment , 1990 .

[5]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Philosophical Perspectives on Risk , 2004 .

[6]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[7]  J. Rawls Justice as Fairness , 2001 .

[8]  Mark Bovens,et al.  The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations , 1998 .

[9]  J. Calton,et al.  Stakeholder Learning Dialogues: How to Preserve Ethical Responsibility in Networks , 2002 .

[10]  John Grin,et al.  Technology Assessment as Learning , 1996 .

[11]  M. Callon,et al.  Engineering and Sociology in a Military Aircraft Project: A Network Analysis of Technological Change , 1988 .

[12]  John Grin,et al.  Implermentation as communicative action. An interpretative understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups , 1996 .

[13]  Sjoerd D. Zwart,et al.  A network approach for distinguishing ethical issues in research and development , 2006, Science and engineering ethics.

[14]  Dennis F. Thompson Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many Hands , 1980, American Political Science Review.

[15]  John D. Rawls,et al.  Political Liberalism: Reply to Habermas , 1995 .

[16]  K. Shrader-Frechette Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms , 1991 .

[17]  John D. Rawls,et al.  Reply to Habermas , 1995 .

[18]  S. Zwart,et al.  Risks of aerobic granular sludge technology: Ethical and methodological aspects , 2005 .

[19]  Ch. Perelman Justice and Justification , 1965 .

[20]  Victoria Hoban,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner , 2013 .

[21]  Norman Daniels,et al.  Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics , 1979 .

[22]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[23]  C. A. Dykstra,et al.  The Quest for Responsibility , 1939, American Political Science Review.

[24]  D. Schoen The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[25]  K. Shrader-Frechette Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms , 1991 .

[26]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms . By K. S. Shrader-Frechette. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. 312p. $39.95 cloth, $15.95 paper. , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[27]  E. Schroeder,et al.  Activated sludge. , 1975, Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation.

[28]  John Rawls,et al.  政治自由主义 = Political liberalism , 2000 .

[29]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[30]  J. Rawls,et al.  Justice as Fairness: A Restatement , 2001 .

[31]  Kai A. Olsen,et al.  Democracy and Technology , 2011, Computer.

[32]  John Grin,et al.  Implementation as communicative action , 1996 .